Curve, article, etc
1) the fishermen are in denial. True
2) a straight line would also describe that data well, extending the time to depletion out to 2120 ish.
3) aquaculture is on the increase, so the shrimp stand a chance
4) fishing tends to remove the big healthy breeders and the genetically large individuals from the population. Even given time, its not clear that Florida will ever again have the abundance of enormous groupers they had once. They seem to have been removed from the gene-pool.
5) the list of "edible" fish has expanded greatly for the western world over the past decades, as we now eat fish that we once considered "trash fish". We eat them now because they were marketed to us. They were marketed to us because the fisheries were having trouble getting enough of those species we were used to. As each species population decreases, we attack a new species.
6) Many varieties of salmon, seatrout etc return to their birth streams to spawn. Once that variety is gone, its not clear that another lineage will adopt that stream. Each stream has a maximum capacity. Thus, fewer streams in use means even after fishing is halted completely, maximum fish stocks will not be as large, unless baby fish/eggs are introduced, so as to 'adopt' those streams.
While I have questions about the absoluteness of this conclusion (the year 2048 is the year the oceans die), the data in general over many years supports that overall, the ocean and edible fish populations are hurting,and that we could drive it all to an endpoint of ocean-fish no longer being a commercially viable food source.
Conservation early might not be necessary, but given that its impossible after the fact, I think its worthwhile.
Altoid - curiously strong.